. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

The Ultimate Negative Campaigning

December 30, 2007, 10:45 a.m.

Clean Campaigns

It's countdown to the Iowa caucus. Some 100,000 Iowa Democrats are projected to show up. (Which means the candidates, together, have probably spent at least $500 per caucus attendee to get them there.)

In any event, the negative campaigning is upon us in this virtual three-way tie: attacks in TV ads and mailers, surrogates making charges for which they or the candidate subsequently apologizes, "push polling."

But there's a form of "negative campaigning" that makes what's now going on look like an election for kindergarten class president by comparison.

It's old news in a way. But it's not only relevant to the current campaign season, it's relevant to my forthcoming Cyberspace Law Seminar this next semester.

While I was certainly aware of the potential problems raised by electronic voting machines, especially those without a paper trail, before a friend brought this video to my attention I had not previously seen what appears to be the following congressional testimony by this seemingly credible computer programmer spelling out in detail the extent to which machines may have been deliberately programmed to "flip" (the witness' word) the results in Florida or Ohio.

If anyone knows why this YouTube video is not to be believed, please put a comment at the end of this blog entry. I'm not interested in spreading rumors or false facts. Otherwise, I think we may have even more problems ahead of us in November 2008.

Senator Joe Biden has said, "There are some things worth losing elections for." Good for him, but it is not a sentiment widely shared among those (in both parties) engaged in negative campaigning right now.

When the end justifies the means, where if anywhere does one draw the line?

Clinton E. Curtis, ex-programmer tells all during a Congressional hearing on voting fraud. In October 2000, Curtis was asked by Tom Feeney (R), then Speaker of the House in Florida, to write a computer program that would render electronic voting fraud undetectable. Curtis did just that.

Nothing posted on this blog is intended as, constitutes, nor should be taken to be, "legal advice," nor as creating an attorney-client relationship.

Personal View

This blog is neither affiliated with the University of Iowa nor hosted by it. It is maintained by Nicholas Johnson in his individual capacity. Nothing posted here should be construed as anything other than the personal views of the author.